In 2020, the federal government flooded the economy with liquidity to avoid a complete economic collapse during the Covid-19 pandemic. As part of that effort, the government encouraged the application and expedited granting of Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) loans to companies. At the time (despite numerous questions about what companies and organizations were eligible under the program) speed, not compliance was the watchword. Accordingly, in 2020, many private clubs were encouraged to apply for PPP loans. Despite the emphasis in 2020 on speed and liquidity, the government is now increasing their investigation and prosecution of companies who may have received or used PPP loans improperly.
In 2020, the federal government flooded the economy with liquidity to avoid a complete economic collapse during the Covid-19 pandemic. As part of that effort, the government encouraged the application and expedited granting of Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) loans to companies. At the time (despite numerous questions about what companies and organizations were eligible under the program) speed, not compliance was the watchword. Accordingly, in 2020, many private clubs were encouraged by aggressive lenders to apply for PPP loans. Despite the emphasis in 2020 on speed and liquidity, the government is now increasing their investigation and prosecution of companies who may have received or used PPP loans improperly.
In modern business, nearly every employee and executive has access to, and uses a computer on a regular basis. In line with this, employers expect that work computers will be used solely for work, and that work e-mail accounts are property of the employer, not the individual employee or officer. However, a recent decision by the California Court of Appeal found that something more is required: without a clear policy in place prohibiting the use of an employer’s e-mail accounts for personal purposes and informing employees that their work e-mail accounts are subject to review, an employer may be prohibited from doing so, and evidence collected in that manner may be inadmissible if a dispute arises. What’s more, your lawyer may be prevented from representing you in any disputes with the employee whose e-mail account you accessed if these proper protections are not in place.
Other AALRR Blogs
Recent Posts
- Court of Appeal Sheds Light On The Rights Of Limited Liability Companies And Its Members
- Dueling OpenAI Copyright Cases to Remain Separate, Parallel Actions on Both Coasts
- Section 16600 and the Fate of Trade Secret Exception
- The Contract Is In The Details
- Teaming With Our Clients – California Adopts “Initial Disclosures” in State Court Civil Litigation
- Recent Court of Appeal Decision Shows The Limits Of Exculpatory Clauses In Commercial Leases, Including Limitation of Damages Provisions
- Understanding Deceptive California Statement of Information Scams
- Closing of Pre-Hearing Discovery Loopholes in Arbitration
- International Enforcement of U.S. Trademarks: Simplicity for Complexity’s Sake
- Last Minute Court Decision Delays Enforcement of CPRA Regulations
Popular Categories
- (25)
- (24)
- (4)
- (4)
- (15)
- (2)
- (3)
- (3)
- (2)
- (2)
- (2)
- (5)
- (4)
- (5)
- (1)
- (4)
- (1)
- (3)
- (2)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
Contributors
- Cindy Strom Arellano
- Reece C. Bennett
- Eduardo A. Carvajal
- Michele L. Collender
- Scott K. Dauscher
- Christopher M. Francis
- Evan J. Gautier
- Carol A. Gefis
- Edward C. Ho
- Micah R. Jacobs
- John E. James
- Jonathan Judge
- David Kang
- Joseph K. Lee
- Shawn M. Ogle
- Kenneth L. Perkins, Jr.
- Jon M. Setoguchi
- Jon Ustundag
- Brian M. Wheeler